Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 013

Monday, April 5 1999

• Apples and Fruit
• Re: Women's Prayer Group (fwd)
• Re: psak and ruach hakodesh
• Re: Women's Prayer Group (fwd)
• ecology
• RE: ignoring ecology
• An Unusual and Difficult Twist on Post-Mortems
• Yoma 076a: 221 Lug (fwd)
• Re: Women's Prayer Group (fwd)
• Re: ecology
• Re:ecology
• [none]

As one poster noted, "p'ri" became "apple" in an era when the word meant
"fruit". Much like the French "pomme", which means "apple" (in the modern
sense) or can be more general -- e.g. "pomme de terre" is a potato. Or,
"tapuach" in 19th cent Hebrew, which also gives us "tapuach zahav" --
nowadays contracted to "tapuz" for orange, as well as "tapuach adamah" for
potato.

R' Tam's translation for the biblical "tapuach" is an esrog. And esrog is
one of the possibilities for the identity of the p'ri eitz hada'as. So, perhaps
the issue is also about the shift in meaning of tapu'ach.

BTW, note that the eitz hachaim's fruit are never mentioned, it's always
"mi'eitz hachaim", as though it's the tree itself that would be eaten. Add to
this that the esrog has the property of ta'am eitzo upiryo shaveh and that
the Zohar believes that it and the eitz hada'as were different parts of the
same tree, and it gets interesting.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  3-Apr-99: Shevi'i, 
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 308:46-52
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 59b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Kuzari I 57-60

> From: Esther and Aryeh Frimer <frimera@internet-zahav.net>
> Subject: Women's Prayer Group
> 
> In a recent posting to Avodah Rabbi YGB writes: 
> 
> "Certainly, debate of issues may take place on any level - but in
> context, it seems to the reader that, say, the opinions of Justice Elon
> may be used to refute those of R' Herschel Schachter, or that communal
> rabbis who assess the situation subjectively may differ with R' Moshe
> Feinstein or the Rav. I have difficulty with R' YH Henkin being cited
> numerous times as the "tzad she'kineged" against scholars whom I - and
> most of observant Jewry - regard as greater b'chochmo u'b'minyan." 
>

Since there has been some confusion, I must note that we are not referring
to R' Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, the renowned Gadol b'Torah and Posek, but to
his grandson, R' Yehuda Herzl Henkin, author of Shut Bnei Banim.
 
> We want to thank Rabbi Bechhofer for his kind comments about our paper
> and for his criticism as well. We believe that the dictum of Rambam is
> appropriate here, namely "Kabel et ha-emet mi-mi she-amaro". The issue
> should be the validity and the emes of an argument, not its authorship.

This is not so simple.

The concept of objective "emes" does not necessarily apply to Halachic
areas of this sort. It may apply, say, as I believe, to the identification
of techeles as a product of murex trunculus by marine biologists - because
that has to do physical reality - but not to determination of ratzon
Hashem as expressed by Halacha.

Thus, for example, as we well know and have noted here in the past, R'
Chaim Soloveichik would send she'eilos to R' Yitzchok Elchonon Spektor for
decisions, asking that the logic not be expounded in the reponse, lest he
be compelled, based on his derech ha'limud, to reject the psak. The psak,
however, being rendered by RYES, to RCS's mind, stood on its own.

V'hu ha'din b'nidon didan. R's Frimer themselves, perhaps subconsciously,
admit as much in their dedication of much space and discussion to the
definition of R' Moshe Feinstein's and R' Yoshe Ber Soloveichik's position
on WPG. Why bother if R' Henkin's and Prof. Elon's opinion is equally
weigthy with that of RMF and RYBS? I believe that a subtle compliment -
well-deserved - to R' Shaul Yisraeli as "eminent" - is of the same nature.
If we are all equal in "emes" - what makes RSY more "eminent"?

> But we can only testify that both Harav Menachem Elon (A musmach of
> Hevron Yeshivah) and Rav Yehudah Herzl Henkin are serious Talmidei

Sorry to quibble, but I do not believe Chevron gives Semicha!

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

I haven't been following the thread that closely so I apologize if this has 
already been mentioned but over the first days I began studying the sefer 
"elah hamitzvot" authored by the Maharatz Chiyot.  Towards the end of the 1st 
chapter  he says '.... raenu dhaya lysod munach v'kayam etzlam , dachar 
chatimat hatora lo diber hashem lnavi o lchacham, hein derech nvuah vruach 
hakodesh vurim vtumim ubat kol shum inyan bdvar chok umishpat, vlo yilmad 
hashem lish derech hanhaga vlimud hadinim chok umishpat......'

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

In a message dated 4/3/99 11:55:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< 
 The concept of objective "emes" does not necessarily apply to Halachic
 areas of this sort. It may apply, say, as I believe, to the identification
 of techeles as a product of murex trunculus by marine biologists - because
 that has to do physical reality - but not to determination of ratzon
 Hashem as expressed by Halacha.
 
 Thus, for example, as we well know and have noted here in the past, R'
 Chaim Soloveichik would send she'eilos to R' Yitzchok Elchonon Spektor for
 decisions, asking that the logic not be expounded in the reponse, lest he
 be compelled, based on his derech ha'limud, to reject the psak. The psak,
 however, being rendered by RYES, to RCS's mind, stood on its own.
  >>
Dear R'YGB,
I've heard this before and wonder were these personal shailot that R' Chaim 
would not answer for himself because he was nogea or did he not answer 
because of other reasons?

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

PS In the past I think there have been some posts on the issue of honoring 
people who seem less than fully honorable. The most recent RJJ journal 
(Halacha and Contemporary ) has an article on this topic.

> >
> >One possible reason the religious community "ignores" issues such as 
> ecology may be that many of those at the forefront of the issues (or at 
> least the ones who get the most press) tend to be radicals. (Recently I read 
> in the local paper about a woman living in a tree in order to keep it from 
> being cut down. She talks to the tree (named it of course) and feels that 
> the tree is protecting her...)
> >
Unfortunately, there is a lot of truth in this statement,

It seems to me that a lot of the positions of orthodoxy are formed
by what other groups say or do rather than what is right.

Tanach is not stressed because nonJewish groups stress the bible.
Grammar is not important because the maskilim stressed dikduk.
Similarly for Jewish history.
Yiddish replaces Hebrew because Ben-Yehuda was not religious.
    I once read that on a British census form that R. Sonnenfeld listed
    his mother tongue as Hebrew and not Yiddish because a Jew's mother
    tongue has to be Hebrew. He bemoaned the fact that the religious
    had not initiated speaking Hebrew at least in learning.

The only thing left is Talmud. I suspect that much of the nonacceptance
of genizah and other new manuscripts is because this is seen as an
academic approach. Academia is even taking over kabbalah and haskafa.

I am well aware that certain gedolim, most famously the Gra, opposed this
approach. Rav Henkin (senior) amomg others stressed grammar. The Shelah
hakodesh talked about the importance of the Hebrew language.
However, these opinions are drowned out by the overwehlming majority.

I wish to point out that R. Bechhofer stresses the important of nach,
haskafa and has also written on ecology. This just proves that he is
a singular point (compliment!).

In terms of the present genocide in Kosova I have heard rav Lau 
condemn what is happening. Sorry to say he seems to be another
singular point among rabbanim.

chag kasher vesameach,
Eli Turkel

>Date: Tue, 30 Mar 99 17:51:48 PST
>From: toramada@netvision.net.il
>Subject: RE: Avodah V3 #11
>>RE: ignoring ecology
>>Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 09:10:36 -0500
>>From: "Allen Baruch" <Abaruch@SINAI-BALT.COM>
>>Subject: RE: ignoring ecology
>>
>>Eli Turkel wrote:
>>
>>One possible reason the religious community "ignores" issues such as
>ecology may be that many of those at the forefront of the issues (or at
>least the ones who get the most press) tend to be radicals. (Recently I read
>in the local paper about a woman living in a tree in order to keep it from
>being cut down. She talks to the tree (named it of course) and feels that
>the tree is protecting her...)
>>
>>Let's not forget too, that there are only so many things that one can treat
>as a "burning issue". After work, family, chinuch habonim, communal issues
>and my own seder limud, how worked up can I get about the fact that the
>crabs in the Chesapeake Bay are dying?
>>
>>Chag kosher v'sameach
>>
>>Sender Baruch
>
>Let's take another look at this.  True, the crabs in Chesapeake Bay don't
>grab our "jewish" imagination.
>
>How about the disaster of the sports people who died not only b/c of falling
>into a river, but b/c of the toxicity of this river - in Israel.
>
>How come I didn't see a single rabbi call for a cleanup.  No Mincha/Maariv
>get-togethers on the river banks which contain water that is hazardous to
>our health and certainly comes under the heading of Piku'ach Nefesh.
>

A more realistic reason is that frumkeit is measured in the realm of Bein
Adam LaMakom, never in the realm of Bein Adam L'Chavero.  With the notable
exception of groups that study Shmirat Halashon, I have never heard of any
Hitorarut ever dedicated to encouraging the adoption of Chumrot (assuming
they exist) in the realm of Bein Adam L'Chavero.

hg


..............................................................................

                             Hershel Ginsburg, Ph.D.
                            Licensed Patent Attorney
                                       and
                            Biotechnology Consultant

                          P.O. Box 1058 / Rimon St. 27
                                  Efrat, 90435
                                    Israel
              Phone: 972-2-993-8134        FAX: 972-2-993-8122
                         e-mail: ginzy@netvision.net.il

..............................................................................

A current "hot" & controversial news item here in Israel raises some
interesting and difficult halachic questions.  First the news item as
broadcast on Kol Yisrael and Galei Tza"Hal, and then the questions (which
are mine & not part of the newscast).

Item:  Channel Two (TV) news reported on their weekend news magazine that
for the past number of years Tza"Hal has been using the bodies of soldiers
killed in action (usually in Lebanon) to train combat physicians in
emergency field surgical procedures often used to stabilize badly wounded
soldiers (also usually in Lebanon) before they can be evacuated to a field
or regular hospital for further treatment.

It should be noted that the family of the fallen soldier whose body is used
for the training, **HAS** given permission for a post-mortem examination,
but **HAS NOT** been told that the post-mortem would also entail using the
body for combat physician training.

It is also important to note that the role of the combat physician is an
extremely difficult one, making the job of a big city emergency room
physician childsplay by comparison.  The combat physicians are young, tend
to be less experienced, and are part of search and rescue teams or commando
units (in the latter case they accompany the commando unit on their
mission).  Their job is to stabilize the worst wounded solidiers so that
the soldiers can survive evacuation.  The surgery is performed usually
under enemy fire, often at night, at best with the assistance of a combat
medic, and with only whatever equipment and drugs they can carry on their
back. Speed is critical.  One of last year's casualties in Lebanon was an
Israeli Druze combat physician killed while trying to save a critically
wounded soldier.

The dillema is compounded by the following realities:

a)  The expectation of soldiers going into battle (nowdays Lebanon), and
even more so of their parents, is that Tza"Hal will make superhuman efforts
to bring soldiers, **ESPECIALLY** wounded soldiers, back alive.  This
expectation is probably a major factor in the soldiers' morale.

b)  None of the bereaved families appear to support the policy; some
reacted very negatively; others (perhaps the majority) have so far kept
their silence.  None voiced any support or understanding.

c)  The general medical consensus  appears to be that there is no adequate
subsititute for training the combat physicians on the bodies of fallen
soldiers.

Halachic questions:

1)  The classical basis for permitting autopsy is the Tshuva of the Nodah
B'Yehuda where he permitted autopsy where the information gleaned at
autopsy could directly benefit another patient in the same hospital
suffering from the same disease.  The unfortunate expectation is that there
will continue to be serious casualties among soldiers serving in Lebanon,
as long as Israel maintains its presence there.  Does this expectation of
**FUTURE** wounded meet the criteria of the Nodah B'Yehuda?

2)  Is there any halachic difference between conducting an autopsy to glean
knowledge about the course of a disease or the effectiveness of a surgical
procedure versus using the body to train combat physicians in field
surgical procedures?

3)  Once the bereaved family has given permission for the autopsy to be
performed, have they waived the right to prevent using the body for
training combat physicians?

4)  Given the assumption (which is in and of itself a controversial
question) that Israel's presence in Lebanon is necessary to protect the
population of the Galil from Hizbollah rocket and terrorist attacks, and
given the potential negative impact on soldiers' morale resulting from
dropping this form of training, is this a sufficient basis for allowing the
practice?

5)  If the totality of the circumstances permit the practice, does that
mandate the practice?  And if yes, is securing the bereaved family's
permission necessary or even relevant?

hg



..............................................................................

                             Hershel Ginsburg, Ph.D.
                            Licensed Patent Attorney
                                       and
                            Biotechnology Consultant

                          P.O. Box 1058 / Rimon St. 27
                                  Efrat, 90435
                                    Israel
              Phone: 972-2-993-8134        FAX: 972-2-993-8122
                         e-mail: ginzy@netvision.net.il

..............................................................................

Updating the olam...

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 23:36:03 +0200 (IST)
From: Mordecai Kornfeld <kornfeld@netvision.net.il>
To: sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu, yshaw@dafyomi.co.il, ytavin@dafyomi.co.il,
    rachrysl@netmedia.net.il, zusmandb@netvision.net.il,
    kornfeld@netmedia.co.il, gerti@netmedia.co.il,
    edbecker@netvision.net.il
Subject: Yoma 076a: 221 Lug

(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material as long as 
this header and the footer at the end of the mailing are included.)
Join our free E-mail lists - instructions at end of this mailing!
_________________________________________________________________

               THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST

      brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
          Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

 [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL]
________________________________________________________________


Yoma 076a: 221 Lug
Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer <ygb@aishdas.org> wrote:

I was dared to come up with a sensible connotation for the kos of Dovid
holding 221 log l'asid lavo, the gematria of "revaya" ("kosi revaya").

This is what I cam up with:

Two Hakdomos:

1. The advent of Moshiach ben Dovid is associated in Perek Chelek with
epochs of seven years, ayain sham.

2. On Rosh HaShana, al pi din one may fast during the day, making kiddush
and eating only at night.

Now, in 221 log there are the equivalent of 884 kosos for kiddush
(kos=revi'is).

On every Shabbos and Yom Tov we make Kiddush twice, once at night and once
during the day, except, as noted, on RH when it is not a chiyuv during the
day.

In Galus we have two days YT. Me'shum kevoda shel Eretz Yisroel lo gazru,
true, but since the Galus occurred, rov minyan u'binyan of Am Yisroel has
maintained YT sheni.

So altogether we make kiddush twice a day on four days of Succos & Shmini
Atzeres/Simchas Torah, four days of Pesach, two days of Shevuos, and once
a day on RH - 22 more kiddush's a year, 154 over seven years. In seven
years there are approximately 365 Shabbosos, 730 over seven years. 

So, in seven years:

Shabbos Kiddush:    730
Yom Tov Kiddush:    154
                    ___
                    884 = the amount of kiddush cups in the "kosi revaya".


Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

-----------------------
Rabbi Bechhofer added later:

An Avoda member, R' A' Pechman, asked about havdolo; and another member,
R' E' Ginsparg, noted that in Pesachim 119b it is said that the kos of
Dovid is not one of kiddush, but of bentching. So, a little revision, with
one hakdomo:

Seu'da Shlishis does not require bread. Same gematria, vis a vis Birkas 
HaMazon:

7 years:
365 Shabbosos x 2 Kos shel Birkas HaMazon = 730
10 days Yom Tov                           = 140
2 days RH, one meal (at night) per diem   =  14
                                            ___
                                            884 revi'ios in "kosi revaya"
Yasher Koach to the Me'irim!
YGB
-------------------------------------------------

Rabbi Kornfeld replies:


Rav Yosef Gavriel,

Thanks for your very interesting explanation for the enigmatic "221 Lug" of 
King David's cup (Yoma 76). The Gemara is certainly puzzling, and I haven't 
seen any explanation for the number that doesn't resort to Kabalistic 
symbolism. (I asked Rav Moshe Shapiro about it, who suggested an approach 
based on the word "Orech" (length = reaching the final goal...), which I 
won't go in to. If you don't mind, though, I'd like to share with you my own 
understanding of this strange Ma'amar. 

1) In my very humble opinion, the key to this Gemara is in Berachos 7b, "Why 
was she called "Rus? Because King David was among her offspring, and he 
satiated ("Rivehu") Hashem with songs and praises." Chazal make use of the 
root "Revayah" to describe the satisfaction of Hashem with David's Tehilim. 
In Yoma, then, Chazal are saying that as reward for the Tehilim he composed, 
David received, measure for measure, a "satisfying cup ("Kos Revayah")."

Chazal tell us that there are not 150, but 147 Mizmorim in Tehilim, 
corresponding to the years of Yakov Avinu -- Sofrim ch. 16, cited by Tosfos 
Pesachim 117a. (I discussed how to reconcile this with our count elsewhere, 
see my "Torah from the Internet" on Parashas Vayechi. Undoubtedly, King 
David's intention was to counteract the 49 Kelalos of Bechukosai and the 98 
of Mishneh Torah, see Rashi at the beginning of Nitzavim, and for this he 
was rewarded with being given the cup of Birchas ha'Mazon in the World to 
Come, Pesachim 119b -- the "Kos Revayah" of our Sugya according to the 
Maharsha -- unlike Avraham and Yitzchak who produced a Yishmael and an 
Esav.) One and a half times 147 is 220.5 . The fraction was rounded up by 
Chazal to 221 (because one half extra is treated like a whole, "Mishmera 
u'Palga Mishmaros Kari lehu,  Berachos 3b, -- and besides, there is no 
Gematria for a half!).

2) But why, you ask, was he rewarded one and a half times for his efforts? 
Why not 147, Midah k'Neged Midah? The answer is that in order to compose 
Tehilim, David did "overtime"of time and a half. The proper reward for his 
efforts, then, was one and a half times the number of Mizmorim he composed. 
But where do we see that he did time and a half?

The answer lies in Berachos 4a, where David Hamelech praises himself by 
saying, "Am I not a Chasid (= Lifnim mi'Shuras ha'Din)? All the world's 
kings arise at the third hour of the day, while I arise at midnight to 
praise you!" Rashi (ibid. 3b) explains that the third hour means the 
beginning of the third, i.e. two hours into the day. Altogether, David arose 
8 hours earlier than other kings. These hours were David's "overtime," 
during which he composed Mizmorei Tehlim, as the Gemara says (ibid. 3b, 
"Shiros v'Tushbachos").

Altogether how many hours was David up and working? Around the clock! The 
Gemara says (ibid.) that he only slept "like a horse," "dozing off while 
learning" (Rashi), from Tzeis ha'Kochavim until midnight. He didn't really 
sleep a full sleep at all. (This is the source for the Vilna Gaon's famous 
practice.) Normal people, on the other hand, are awake 16 hours: The Gemara 
(ibid. 3a) tells us that "A man begins to talk with his wife," that is, he 
starts to arise (Rashi, Rambam De'os 4:6) at Alos ha'Shachar, and people go 
to bed at *latest* at the end of the fourth hour of the night (Rashi, 
Berachos end of 4a, based on Gemara there), remaining up for a total of 16 
hours. (This is probably the source for the Rambam's statement that it is 
enough for a person to sleep eight hours, De'os 4:6. Even kings probably 
slept eight hours - why should they need two extra hours of sleep -- and how 
could they have enough free time for it? They woke up later than the normal 
person only to afford themselves unique status and show their supremacy.) If 
so, by adding eight waking hours to a 16 hour work schedule (in order to 
compose Tehilim) King David did time and a half. For his he was rewarded 
with the 221 Lug cup of wine! ("Songs [of praise to Hashem] can only be 
recited on a cup of wine," Berachos 36a.)

3) (Note that there appears to be a dissenting opinion in Berachos top of 3b 
that holds David only added *six* waking hours to his day, and not eight 
["Each Mishmar is only three hours..."]. This opinion compares David to the 
average Jew, and not to other kings who rise particularly late. However, 
this opinion will also arrive at the same figure of 1.5 times overtime 
because  it apparently equates being either quantitatively or qualitatively 
"half-awake" to being asleep. Thus, the first six hours of the night, when 
David was half-awake, were not considered to be waking hours: he was only 
awake 18 hours. Other people, on the other hand, go to bed at *earliest* at 
Tzeis, the beginning of the night, and even though some go to sleep later, 
the hours during which half of the people are awake do not count as normal 
waking hours. Altogether, then, normal people are awake 12 hours, and David, 
who was awake 18, once again did time and a half!)

I hope that this opens the way for offering a simple, "Pshat-based" 
understanding of this perplexing Gemara, and that through it a greater 
appreciation can be gained for Ma'amarei Chazal.

-Mordecai
>>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<<
The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf

For information on joining the Kollel's free Dafyomi mailing lists,
write to info@dafyomi.co.il, or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il

On Sun, 4 Apr 1999 Joelirich@aol.com wrote:

> Dear R'YGB, I've heard this before and wonder were these personal
> shailot that R' Chaim would not answer for himself because he was nogea
> or did he not answer because of other reasons? 
> 

Folklore has it that he was loathe to pasken in general, not because of
any specific negi'os. But others here probably have better info.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

On Sun, 4 Apr 1999, Eli Turkel wrote:

>     I once read that on a British census form that R. Sonnenfeld listed
>     his mother tongue as Hebrew and not Yiddish because a Jew's mother
>     tongue has to be Hebrew. He bemoaned the fact that the religious
>     had not initiated speaking Hebrew at least in learning. 
>

He similarly - and very sharply - condemned and bemoaned the lack of
Western Aliyah.
 
> I wish to point out that R. Bechhofer stresses the important of nach,
> haskafa and has also written on ecology. This just proves that he is a
> singular point (compliment!). 
> 
> In terms of the present genocide in Kosova I have heard rav Lau condemn
> what is happening. Sorry to say he seems to be another singular point
> among rabbanim. 
> 

The dearth of holistic role models in contemporary Judaism does not exempt
us from striving towards that goal. "Avodah"is a small step in that
direction. The division of the nation into sharply defined political and
sociological camps is a direct and strong contributing factor to the
problem, and, here too, Avodah, helps mitigate the problem.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

I
<< <<These include topics like Meimad mentions but also problems like ecology
 >(which in fact R. YGB has himself addressed). Thus, although individual
 >people (icluding myself) have written about ecology I would hardly call
 >it a burning issue in the religious community.>>
 >
 >One possible reason the religious community "ignores" issues such as 
 ecology may be that many of those at the forefront of the issues (or at 
 least the ones who get the most press) tend to be radicals. (Recently I read 
 in the local paper about a woman living in a tree in order to keep it from 
 being cut down. She talks to the tree (named it of course) and feels that 
 the tree is protecting her...)
 >
 >Let's not forget too, that there are only so many things that one can treat 
 as a "burning issue". After work, family, chinuch habonim, communal issues 
 and my own seder limud, how worked up can I get about the fact that the 
 crabs in the Chesapeake Bay are dying?
 > >>

I discussed this issue with a young man who is studying in Israel for the 
year. His response was that if there is someone else who could take care of 
these things who isn't involved in learning, then those who are involved in 
learning are exempt.  I understand the source for this but have to wonder if 
this message, which seems consistent among many shades of Yeshivot, is 
creating an egocentricity that will last well after Yeshiva is done( assuming 
that at least some percentage of the students eventually leave )
I also wonder if the fact that the conservative movement seems to have tikun 
olam as a major message plays any part in the orthodox community's lack of 
response.

Kol tuv,
Joel Rich

Does anyone if the Mishnah Torah in English can be found on the Internet?



Mark

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]